in pakistan. then we had dr. freedy, who helped us over there. now he's in prison for treason as was pointed out earlier. they gave the chinese access to the helicopter that was left behind at the compound. and then finally, the connie network. we talked about the connie network. i asked for his support, as you have, very strongly in the past. asked for his support to go after the haqqani network. he said he doesn't play -- he goes after all terrorist organizations. not just the haqqani. however, last year we had the chairman of the joint chiefs, admiral mike mullen, testify that with isi support, the haqqani operatives planned and conducted a truck bomb attack as well as an assault on our embassy. we also have credible evidence that they were behind the june 28th attack against the intercontinental hotel in kabul and a host of other smaller but

effective operations. in short he said the haqqani network acts as an arm of pakistan's interservices intelligence agency. which takes me to my next question. we're giving all this foreign aid to a country that is complicit in working with the terrorists who are killing americans. i understand all the implications. zardari referred to our relationship as like a bad marriage but divorce is not an option. but when it comes to the funding, we're looking at crafting legislation that would essentially require the state department to certify that they are not working with these networks, including haqqani. if that cannot be certified the foreign aid will be cut off. i wanted to get your thoughts on that legislation. >> well, i think, congressman, what president zardari told you on behalf of the civilian leadership of the government of pakistan is true.

he has been a good partner in going after terrorism that threatens his country and afghanistan and our troops. we have no evidence of any high-level official knowing about bin laden. but, like you, i have to assume that lower level people, you know, had to have known something. but we haven't proven that. it could be asserted, but not yet proven. so this is a -- you know, this is a complicated, difficult relationship. and what we are doing now is making it very clear what our expectations have to be going forward.e is no doubt in my mind that certain elements of the pakistani government are more ambivalent about cracking down on terrorism than other elements. when i sit acrfr

ambassador or talk to the prime minister and others, i think they are very sincere. you know, they -- they know that the scourge of terrorism is killing pakistanis. zardari knows that terrorists and, yet, there has been relationships between terrorist groups and the military and the intelligence services for many decades. and what's unique now is that this democratically elected government has survived longer than any other democratically elected government. for the first time in the parliament, you have questions being asked of the military and the isi. you have the supreme court asking questions about actions of the military and the isi. so you see the strains and stresses of trying to have a civilian government in a democracy assert control over all elements of the government. and we want to continue to support the democratic trend inside pakistan. so, you know, walking this line, trying to make sure what the levers we can pull are, where we

can really put pressure, is -- is basically how i spend a lot of my time. and i take seriously the underlying thrust of your question. and i will carefully evaluate all factors when it comes time to make a decision. >> let me just say, thank you for -- you've been very strong about the haqqani network. i think zardari is sincere in his efforts, but i don't think he has a lot of control over his own military and the isi. i think that's part of the problem. i would urge you to continue your efforts to get them to fight with us against these terrorists rather than be come police it with them. >> thank you so much. mr. cicilline is recognized. >> thank you for the

thoughtfulness of your budget proposal both in its fiscal responsibility and its diplomatic priorities. i thank you for that. i think and acknowledge all the men and women who serve under your leadership of the state department. you have helped really to restore america's position in the world as our ranking member said, as a partner for peace and democracy. and we are all grateful and thank you for your service. and we've had a lot of discussions today about various parts of the world that are of great concern, and particularly unsettled areas of great violence. i'd like to focus my inquiry on two areas really closer to home. the first is, i'll just articulate the questions and give you the balance of my time. the first is really about the sort of events in the middle east in general. in syria, in iran, in that region of the world. and its impact on our gas prices here in the united states. and i know that we -- in my home state, we've seen a tremendous increase in gas prices. and almost 40 cents from a year ago today. and i'm wondering if you can

speak to your perspective on how a variety of international events that you are closely monitoring might have an impact on fuel prices in the near term and also what we're doing both diplomatically and in terms of development efforts in the long term to ensure that gas prices are stabilized. or that, at least, in the long term they're mitigated. because i think, you know, we hear a lot about how this unrest is contributing to a rise in gas prices. some of us also know that the big part of it is speculation and gouging. and we're going to take up some legislation hopefully to address that. but i think events around the world are certainly impacting it and i'd love to hear perspective on that. the second thing i'd like to speak you, i hear about at home. as you know, rhode island is a huge manufacturing state. we're engaged in this whole make it in america agenda to rebuild and reintegrate american manufacturing. one of the challenges we face that i hear from rhode island manufacturers is about the

chinese and their behavior as trading partners and their manipulation of currency and their refusal to protect intellectual property and the challenges of their policies of indigenous innovation and technology transfers. and so i'm just -- i'd like to hear you speak to some of the state department's efforts diplomatically to really help even the playing field so that we can really rebuild american manufacturing in our country. again, thank you and i finally will associate myself with congressman cardoza's remarks on the azores and the importance of both of those issues. i'll submit for a written question relating to the turkish -- our efforts to ensure that the turks respect the christians and are respecting

the churches and religious freedom in that country which i'll follow up with. thank you, madam secretary. >> thank you, congressman. with respect to gas prices, i think there is room for considering ways to rein in speculation and gouging. yes, are there events that are happening in the world that raise questions? yes. but to the extent that it justifies or can explain the increase in the gas prices? i don't believe so. so, therefore, i have long thought that there has to be some market mechanism to try to break speculation that is unrelated. now, if the iranians close the strait of hormuth, we would have to deal with it and we said we would deal with it, but that would contact the market, obviously, to react. but right now there's talk in the air about all kinds of

things, but there is no event. so i do think it's worth exploring the legislation that you referenced. with respect to manufacturing, this administration has brought more trade action against china, against unfair trade practices, against the theft of intellectual property. and we will continue to do so. because we don't fear a level playing field. i have great confidence in businesses and workers of rhode island to be competitive with anybody. but if the big thumb is on the scale, whether it's currency manipulation or the unfortunate theft of intellectual property, as t makes competition one taken a very aggressive approach on the defensive side. on the offensive side, i just hosted a big conference at the state department where we had all the american chambers from around the world come in to talk about how we could do a better job. how we could also knock down those barriers, cut through that red tape. so we want to be deeply involved with our 1,000 economic officers around the world and helping to open markets and create jobs

here at home. we consider that part of what we call economic state craft. and i am very committed to it. >> thank you so much. judge poe is recognized. >> thank you, madame speaker. i have some questions regarding beef trade with taiwan, the u.s. price, given a fair shot in iraq, and about pakistan. and i ask consent to submit those for the record. >> without objection. >> thank you for being here. i know you have to leave. i want to talk about something we have always talked about when we discuss things. and it's the folks that live in the camp. they are being moved -- some are

being moved to camp liberty. camp liberty now is a situation where there's not enough water. the sewage is a tremendous problem. there's no electricity, people there are not allowed to see would have to continue. how many additional civilian lives would have to be lost to convince you that the military measure says on of this kind that we are proposing necessary to -- how many more?

>> i think the question as you stated yourself, senator, is th effort to build consensus to what action we decide to take. that makes sense. what doesn't make sense is to take unilateral action at this point. as secretary of defense, before i recommend that we with put our sons and daughters harm's way, i have to make sure we know what the mission is. i have to make sure that we know whether we could achieve the mission, at what price and whether or not it will make matters better or worse. those are the considerations that i have to engage in and obviously the administration believes that every effort out to be made to deal with those concerns in the international setting.

so this we -- go somewhere else in the world. and so sincere as i can possibly be, i'd like to know from you a couple of things. first, is the united states prepared to take any people from camp liberty? does the fto designation that they still have affect that in in way? and i'd like to preface that question with one other situation. last time i was in iraq, i met with maliki, but we asked him if we could visit the folks in the camp. and he says absolutely not. but the one thing he told all of us, the reason they are in the camp because your country designates them as an fto organization and we treat them like a foreign terrorist organization. so he dumped it back on our designation as the reason he was treating them the way he was

treating them. he apparently got so irritated with us for even asking the question we learned when we left his office that we had been evicted from the country. asked us to leave. of course, we did what we needed to do. it's a serious matter and so earlier you mentioned that the fto designation is tied to the camp and there being a paramilitary group. can you tell us where we are and if we're going to see resolution to getting this designation removed and getting the people in camp liberty humane conditions and move in the process to countries including the united states so these people can leave the area, which everybody wants to do? >> well, congressman, i appreciate your deep concern. i share it because we are trying to work to resolve a complex situation. avoid bloodshed and violence. and have the people from the camp move to the camp hirea and have them processed as soon as

the united nations could process them. i would have preferred having them processed at ashroff, that turned out impractical for a lot of reasons. and therefore the move now should open up and accelerated process for these interviews to be held and decisions made. we're working around the clock seeing improvements in the infrastructure. we have to close the camp in order to move this process forward. and it will be a key factor in any decision regarding the foreign terrorist organization status. >> thank you so much. >> according to the procedures, even though you've been a good soldier and sat here the whole time, mr. murphy played it well and came here and he's next on the queue to ask the question. so i don't -- it's the last question. you want to share it? quick one and then mr. connolly too. thank you. >> thank you very much, madame secretary. i will be brief to allow mr. connolly to jump in, as well,

before you leave. you've been generous with your time. i am one of a large number of folks here who are skeptical about our current timetable for a withdrawal from afghanistan. i'm surprised we haven't talked more about afghanistan today. and part of that skepticism comes from the fact that i'd like to see us spending a lot more time on the diplomatic and economic cooperation necessary to get afghanistan to a place where they can succeed on their own.

and so i had a couple of questions related to that economic and diplomatic cooperation, but i'll ask one of them. and it's on the economic side. you know, there's various numbers that come out suggesting that 80 to 90 to perhaps even as high as 97% of the afghan economy is dependent right now on international aid. and i'd love to get an update from you as how you see the timetable playing out over the next five years to make sure we withdrawal our military contingent that we leave behind a stable economy there and perhaps suggestions that you have for the united states congress as to things that we can do here to make sure we leave behind a stable economy. i'd like to see us pull out as quickly as possible on the military side. but i recognize we've got to make sure we don't leave an economy that collapses upon our withdrawal. and i think that that is something that we have not talked enough about as a congressman, i'd love your

thoughts on that. >> thank you. mr. connolly, if you could ask a question. >> oh, okay. welcome, madame secretary, i'll be joining my colleagues in expresses my admiration of your service to the country. i've known a lot of secretaries of state over the last 30 years, so i thank you for your service. i wonder if you could comment a little bit -- and i thank my colleague from connecticut and his courtesy. on our diplomatic efforts to sort of try to change minds in russia and china with respect to the syrian situation. i mean, it gets worse by the day. they have provided a shield of protection that has at this point proved not only counterproductive but frankly lethal. and i welcome your thoughts about how we're engaging diplomatically and turning trends on our own. thank you, madame chairman for your courtesy, as well. >> thank you. we do have some very specific

ideas and plans about what we could do to assist afghanistan being more integrated into the regional economy, developing their own economic assets. i would like to take it for the record to give you a broader set of responses. because we see this as you just said as a critical part to really support the transition of our military troops out into 2014. they do go hand-in-hand, which is one of the reasons the transition period for military withdrawal was established. we will follow up wi doing everything we can think of to influence the russians and the chinese. particularly the russians. they're the ones with the very deep, long standing relationship with the assad family, with syria. they continue to sell arms to the syrian regime.

so we know that if we can persuade them to work with us at least on the humanitarian issue, they will have access to assad that hardly anybody else does have. certaino so it is a very troubling and frustrating situation because the oh, they're all for humanitarian aid, but then they don't produce any plan that assad will sign off on. and perhaps after their upcoming election, they will be able to focus on the serious humanitarian situation that is causing so much loss of life and suffering inside syria. but we are not waiting. we are trying to work out other ways of getting humanitarian assistance into syria and also support efforts on the borders because people are fleeing. they're coming out in lebanon,

in jordan, in iraq, and especially in turkey. we will be there to try to help the people coming out as well. this is a terrible crisis that demands the entire world's attention. and i hope that russia will come and work with us to try to resolve it. >> thank you so much. madame secretary, if i could yield one minute to mr. johnson who has been so patiently waiting there. and i don't want to end the meeting without him having an opportunity. thank you, mr. johnson. >> thank you so much, mrs. chairman. it's a real quick question, madame secretary, and thank you for being here today. with the growing economy and vast foreign reserves, it would seem that beijing has more than enough money to deal with many of the issues that u.s. foreign aid supports like its own citizens' health issues. borrowing money from the chinese government to spend back in china on health programs there seems a particularly bad use of u.s. government funds, especially as americans struggle

to cover their own rising health care costs. why are we proposing $2 million in support of health programs in china when the chinese hold an estimated $1.2 trillion of u.s. debt? >> well, congressman, the remaining aid that we are asking for goes to what we consider to be transnational issues in which we have a stake. it was united states aid and leadership that finally helped china respond to their own hiv/aids crisis, which does have a positive effect on the epidemic far beyond their borders. when we look at communicable diseases, when we look at the need to try to help democracy, human rights, good governance groups. there are a lot of brave lawyers in cities in china that are standing up against coercive practices. so i think i will take it for

the record and give you a breakdown of the kinds of things we've been doing, but i share your general point that, you know, we're certainly not looking to support the development of china's economy. they're doing that well enough on their own. but there are certain key values that we still believe we can further within a trade -- within an aid relationship with china. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. >> thank you and thank you to mr. duncan and mr. wilson. you're on my dance card and you'll come up first next time. madame secretary, before we adjourn, i'd like to note that since you've announced publicly you do not intend to serve beyond the end of this term, this is your final appearance to testify on the budget before our committee. i'd like to thank you again so deeply for making yourself available to answer our questions today. and during the past three years. and i hope that we have the opportunity to host you again

for other testimony prior to the conclusion of your exemplary service. i thank you. meeting is adjourned.

an update now from capitol hill. the senate yesterday rejected a measure that would have required the government to approve the keystone xl oil pipeline. senate republicans say they plan to work with their gop counterparts in the house to get the pipeline legislation appr e approved. they're seeking to include it in the final version of the highway bill that's currently under consideration in the house. they're not fighting and dying because they're al qaeda. they're not fighting and dying

and sacrificing their lives because their muslim extremists. they're fighting and dying because they want the same universal rights and freedom that we guaranteed in our constitution. >> i think if we don't get -- get the international community together in a coalition of the willing soon, we're going to look back and say we not only didn't do the right thing morally to stop innocents from being killed, we missed an extraordinary strategic opportunity. >> i want to make the point that the concerns that senator mccain and you and others have expressed are exactly the concerns of the administers. we're not -- we're not divided here. and we are not holding back. this administration has led in iraq, we've led in afghanistan, we've led in the war on terrorism, we led in libya and we're leading in syria. we are working with those elements to try to bring them together. if the agreement here is that we ought not to just simply go in unilaterally, then we have to

build a multilateral coalition. we've got to be able to work at that. it's not that easy to deal with some of the concerns that are out there. >> watch this week's hearings and news conferences whenever you want online at the c-span video library. search events from today, from this year and earlier. there are over a quarter century of american politics and public affairs on your computer at c-span.org/videolibrary. this weekend there are two ways to watch the tucson festival of books on book tv. live on c-span 2 and live online at booktv.org. on c-span 2 saturday starting at 1:30 eastern jeffrey rosen on the history of the supreme court. at 3:00, panels on forensic science, politics at 4:30 and mexico's drug wars at 6:00. sunday, panels continue starting at 1:00 eastern with the environment, the great depression at 2:30, the american west at 4:00 and at 5:30, studying the brain.

and diana henriques on bernie madoff. saturday beginning at noon eastern and sunday at 2:30, the tucson festival of books. live this weekend on c-span 2 and booktv.org. in economic news today from the labor department, employers added 227,000 jobs last month. but the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 8.3%. because of increasing numbers of workers who are entering the labor force. journalists mark halperin and mike heilemann are authors of "game change." we spoke with them recently about the 2008 presidential campaign and this year's race.

>> we can't win without this year's race. >> who have we vetted? >> romney. pawlenty. >> who can we win with in. >> none of them. >> none of them? >> obama just changed the entire dynamic. >> it is a changed here, sir. we desperately need a game change pick. none of these middle-aged white guys are game changers. >> from the new hbo movie based on the book "game change: obama and the clintons, mccain and palin and the race of a lifetime," the book written by john heilemann and mark halperin. the plan was always for mccain to shock the world with his vice presidential pick. they're joining us from new york. thanks for being with us here on c-sp c-span. >> great to be with you, steve. >> hi, steve. >> mark, let me begin with you. why four